How are you reacting to terror?

Page Tools

Terrorism is effective as a weapon only if we respond to
it, writes Hugh Mackay.

THE estimated 7000 Australians who were in Bali at the time of
last weekend's bombings were neither heroic nor stupid. They were
simply representatives of that very large section of the population
who convert their fear of terrorism into defiance.

Other people react differently. Many Australians wouldn't dream
of visiting Bali or anywhere else in Indonesia in the present
circumstances. Their fear of a terrorist attack would inhibit such
travel and might even encourage them to modify their behaviour at
home. They are the people who are already avoiding places they
regard as being peculiarly vulnerable to a terrorist attack 
the Sydney Opera House, say, or the MCG.

According to Dr Muriel Dumont, a social psychologist at
Belgium's Catholic University of Louvain, both reactions are
equally indicative of people's fear. Quoted in the latest issue of
the British Psychological Society's Psychologist, Dumont
says "the natural tendency when afraid is to do whatever is
possible to regain some control and protect oneself as far as
possible from terrorism's dangers. Given that the (London) bombings
occurred on public transport, changing travel plans leads people to
feel they are in control of their life and to feel more
secure."

But she points out that changing travel plans is not the only
way to regain control over one's life: "Defiance appears to be yet
another way." When people become angry or defiant in the face of a
threat, they feel more in control, since anger is an easier emotion
to deal with than fear. Anger puts us on the front foot and can
make us feel more powerful and optimistic, less at risk, and
therefore less likely to take precautions.

It sometimes looks as if there's a third possibility 
nonchalance. There are people who seem genuinely unaffected by the
threat; neither fearful nor angry, but simply determined to get on
with their lives as if nothing had happened. But nonchalance is
just another form of defiance. Such people are usually well aware
of the threat, but they mask their fear by "whistling in the
dark".

Terrorism may be an extreme case, but it evokes the same range
of human responses as any other serious threat. You might have
given up smoking because of your fear of its health consequences,
but how do you explain someone else's refusal to give up, even when
confronted by the same information you found so persuasive?
Different personality type? Different circumstances, different
levels of stress, different attitudes to life and death? All these
factors, and more, will play their part in producing wildly
different reactions to the same threat.

Persistent smokers may well express their fear as defiance. Or
they may try to blot it out by just chugging along, secretly hoping
that some medical breakthrough will solve whatever health problems
might afflict them in the future.

The same range of reactions will no doubt occur if the threat of
an avian flu pandemic becomes real: some people will yield to
unbridled fear, holing themselves up in their homes with stockpiles
of food, refusing to go anywhere, including their workplace. Some
will modify their behaviour, perhaps by wearing a mask or avoiding
public transport, theatres or other meeting places.

Others will convert their fear into defiance and ignore whatever
suggestions, or even directives, health authorities may issue. The
Queen's message following last July's bomb attacks on Londoners
accurately reflects that attitude: "Those who perpetrate these
brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not
change our way of life." That may be true for the angry and
defiant, but not for the timorous, and both reactions seem equally
rational to those who have them.

The Psychologist also quotes terrorism specialist Dr Brad
McAllister of the University of Georgia, who reminds us that
terrorism works as a weapon of propaganda only if we respond to it:
"If citizens choose to ignore the propaganda effects, then they
undermine the efficacy of terrorism in general." Acts of terror
need to be unexpected to be effective. If they become commonplace,
they lose their power to shock.

But there's an awkward issue we shall have to face, sooner or
later. We try to distance ourselves from terrorists by promoting
the idea that they are fanatical beyond understanding. Yet
McAllister's research among captured terrorists finds little
evidence of psychopathology or sociopathology in on-the-ground
operatives, but only in their leaders. His conclusion: "Terrorism
and suicide terrorism are simply rational strategies employed by
otherwise normal individuals."

Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that we too glorify death in
war and that some of our most celebrated war heroes have willingly
and deliberately sacrificed their lives to a cause. The present
situation is utterly different from conventional warfare, but it is
nonsense to say that suicide attacks are alien to our culture. The
Roman poet Horace, not a Muslim, wrote that "it is sweet and proper
to die for one's country".

No doubt the core values of many terrorists would seem familiar
and even praiseworthy if differently expressed, but they have been
perverted and distorted by hatred. We have become the enemy.

Page Tools

SPONSORED LINKS

1128562940553-theage.com.auhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/hugh-mackay/how-are-you-reacting-to-terror/2005/10/06/1128562940553.htmltheage.com.auThe Age2005-10-07How are you reacting to terror?OpinionOpinionHughMackay